My concern with respect to giving too much weight to the psychological aspects when prescribing homeopathic remedies:

Who's defining normal behavior, what are the rubics, standards, etc.

projection: how does one avoid this?

cultural bias, gender bias,(Freud had a major problem with women) intellectual bias,
spiritual bias, economic bias, political bias, professional bias...

subjectivity / objectivity / relativity.

Further more: language or linguistical bias...some people describe themselves as despressed, when they are actually anxious. Some people claim to be sad, when really they mean bored.

It's hard enough for psycholgists to know what actually makes the wheels spin in their own heads, let alone that of another! Psycology is not a science. Yes, its charts and statistical reports utilize the scientific method of logical plotting and calculating, but as for psychology it self, the discipline falls within the arts, not sciences.


Remember: "OCCAM'S RAZOR"...don't complicate matters, take the most direct route, ie, PHYSICAL SYMPTOMS ARE THE SHORTCUT TO THE SOUL OF THE BEING IN DISTRESS.

[This message has been edited by Mselle (edited 17 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Mselle (edited 17 October 2000).]

Bravo!!!

occums razor as I understand it is to evaluate explanations "the simplest, most rational is the best" The idea of a simple and direct route pervades all science. All experiments and research need to show this. Everything is controlled except for one variable etc.

However, as a student of homeopathy I can't see how in most cases basing a remedy on physicals alone can be the most simple route.
Other threads recently mention Kent's approach of basing the remedy on the mind symptoms and then look for physical confirmations and more confirmations of modalities. This approach gives a complete picture. I have based acute cases on physicals alone and failed. After taking the time and effort to repertorize the mentals I was successful.

Your point about Freud is a good one. Kent also exemplifies the sexism of his time. One has to get past the cultural and temporal constructs. Depression doesn't appear in Kent, for example, people then were sad.

I have also heard of people with physical symptoms describe themselves as normal. A women with colitus described her stools as "like everyone else" One only need to ask more questions to get at the accurate description. The same is true for the mind. Ask more questions.

I feel it is a matter of case taking skills and knowing the language of the repetories.

I think we are seeing more of a tendency to repertorise the patients mental state rather than mental symptoms. I suppose a symptom is only really a symptom if it is extreme, limiting to the patient, not normal for the patient or very striking/ out of place in relation to the rest of the case, etc.

Joyfulness would not normally be considered a symptom until it reaches the extremes seen in the coffea state and starts to limit the life of the patient. Carcinocin patients are pathologically kind, etc.

The same must also be true with symptoms that tend to be viewed more negatively. The patient should be pathologically irritable, jealous, weepy, haughty etc before we consider it a symptom to be repertorised.

I am still in my first year at homeopathy school so perhaps I am mistaken but as I understand it doesn't Hahnemann explain that the disposition HAS to be taken into account when finding the correct remedy - but not just the disposition, rather the CHANGE in the dispostion since the malady occured. Isn't that the key word? That say a woman who has pulsatilla mentals and ALWAYS has, then her physical symptoms are to be the guide as to the remedy if there was no change in her personality? What then if there is NO cahnge in the personality of the patient? Are mentals even considered?

Would love clarification

Thanks all.

Since I might be related to William of Occam , I will take it upon myself to answer.

Barb, it's a difference between acute and chronic prescribing. If it's an acute, the prescriber notes all symptoms that have changed since the onset of the acute state, be they physical, mental, emotional, general.

If the chronic case is being taken it's more subtle, as the whole set of symptoms is valuable, but it is more subjective to look at the mentals than the physicals and generals. This is because, for example, what one practitioner might perceive as "loquacious" another might perceive as normally talkative etc. Whereas a physical such as warts on hands is not open to debate.
Some modern practitioners prefer to use mentals because they believe the mind is in some sense "prior to" the body and is also more expressive than any of the physical organs of the body. There are some prescribers with a superb understanding of human nature and wisdom to perceive mental and emotional imbalance (my own teacher Misha is one such), but these people are few and far between, and it's much safer for mere mortals such as myself to rely on physicals and generals, with some confirmation and differential analysis using mentals. In practice it means that when taking a chronic case, one repertorises the undeniable physical symptoms first and then, if there is a choice of remedies, uses the mentals as a secondary way of making a final selection.

Well, I will put my two cents worth in, although I'm sure everyone knows what I will say.

I have great success in using the mentals as the primary symptoms with generals next (sleep, temp sensitivities etc) then physicals after that. Sometimes a pecuiar physical will lead me into the remedy, but I must still see the mental disposition reflected in the remedy I choose.

If a patient is showing emotional characteristics of a remedy, and this is their normal (although not necessarily healthy) state, and they are in an acute, I will often use the remedy indicated by the normal emotional symptoms. She is not well, if she is still displaying these symptoms, and my experience is that her 'constitutional' remedy will cure the physicals.

If I have already been treating her and she has been well up to this point on her 'constitutional' then I will look at the change in symptoms. I may then prescribe on the peculiar physicals, but will tend to look at complementary remedies first.

If I am using physicals, I will use physical generals in preference to specific physical symptoms, as these are always more indicitive of the patient rather than the disease.

Remember, Hahnemann himself stated the mental disposition OFTEN chiefly determines the choice of remedy, not always, but often. Also, he never said only on mentals, but that these were less able to be hidden from the physician. Like anything, it is merely a matter of practice and of knowledge of materia medica. Hahnemann seemed to think they would be easier for the physician to use, not harder. And Hahnemann was not a 'modern' homoeopath, nor was Kent.

Herbert A Roberts wrote in his book 'The Principles and Art of Cure by Homoeopathy' 1936, "The mental symptoms rank very highly for the reason that they point to the man himself..." He talks of" ..the essential part of case-taking, the comprehension of the mental symptoms". He also says that the simillimum cannot be found without also taking the generals into account.

David

Hello djk

In principle, I can see your point of view, and for a few very insightful and wise homoeopaths, this works well, but in practice I find that using the physicals primarily has led to better prescriptions.

If you will forgive me, your suggestion of Plaina on that bb case of an out of control youngster showed the worst kind of prescribing on a mental state.

And yet I have done so in practice and it has worked. with Platina in particular too. Why do you think that would be?

But, to be fair, I may have jumped to the remedy too quickly without confirming some generals, which I understand is worrying to my esteemed collegues.

But I can only say again that I have success with this method. I have been weighting the mentals for years, and it is simply a matter of practice and of observation. The physicals do not give me the same results when I focus on them. Generals, however, are much more useful to me. This is my style of practice, one which I share with a lot of other homoeopaths in Australia. The colleges here stress this, but every practitioner is free to make up his or her own mind.

I have no problem with those who prefer Boenninghausen's method, for example. Homoeopathy is an art as much as a science, and art is to some degree about individual expression. As long as practitioners concern themselves with the Single Remedy, Minimum Dose, Law of Similars and the Direction of Cure, how they get to the remedy should be left up to them. We are not machines, not robots following programming, but individuals following our instincts and our intuitions and our inspirations. I believe this is to be encouraged.

So I am not arguing that everyone must do it my way, only saying that the method I use works, and if others want to try it great, if not then they will find their own way, which is how it should be. Being a homoeopath is as much a personal journey as it is a job, and with good,clear and honest intent, I believe most will do good work.

David

[This message has been edited by Djkempson (edited 19 October 2000).]

Can not more aspire to be like those few insightful and wise practitioners? If it is a level of ability, then perhaps more could strive to reach it. Just because it is difficult, does that mean there is not point in trying? Hahnemann seemed to think he could do it. Is it such a terrible thing for those of us practicing his medicine to struggle for the same lofty skills.

David